Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258-82: A Study in Byzantine-Latin Relations

mictuel paUeoloqus the west 1258

-

1282

a stu6y in

Byzantme-Utm Relations

BY

DENO JOHN GEANAKOPLOS

univeRSity paess CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

1959

1959 by the President and Fellows of Harvard Cottage

Distributed in Great Britain by Oxford University Press*

Library of Congres* Catalog Card

Number 39-78&S

Printed in the United State* of America

Publication of this book ha* been aided

from the Ford Foundation

by a grant

London

TO MY WIFE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Among

the

this

many who have helped

book

for publication,

preparing R. L. Wolff of Harvard,

my

who guided

during the long years of thanks go first to Professor

work in its early phase number of problems. I am grateful also to Professors F. Dvornik and M, Anastos of Dumbarton Oaks and Harvard University and A. C. Krey of the and

later

the

gave valuable advice on a large

University of Minnesota for their encouragement during various stages, as well as to Professors Alexander Turyn of the University of Illinois

Whitman

and George H, Williams, Giles Constable, and Cedric Harvard for useful counsel on historical and palaeo-

of

graphical considerations, To Illinois, Catherine Ridder, I

my am

assistant at the University of indebted for wearisome hours

spent on the manuscript. To many other friends here and abroad, who have read sections and advised on specific questions but are too numerous to mention, I can only make collective but grateful reference. Finally, to my wife for her unfailing assistance, patience and endurance, the dedication is a small sign of appreciation. I

am indebted to the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library (under

work was initiated), the Harvard History Department, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the Research Board of the University of Illinois, all of which provided

whose auspices

this

generous financial aid or grants enabling in this country and in Europe*

Acknowledgment

Is

made

me

to carry

on research

to the following publications for

from several articles of mine which originally for appeared therein and which I have drawn on, in revised form, the present book; Traditio for "The Nicene Revolution of 1258 and the Usurpation of Michael VIII Palaeologus," IX (1953) 420-

permission to quote

430;

Dumbarton Oaks Papers

for ^Greco-Latin Relations

Eve of the Byzantine Restoration: The Battle

on the

of Pelagonia (1259),"

VII (1953) 99-141; Harvard Theokgcd Review for "Michael VIII vli

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Palaeologus and the Union of Lyons (1274),"

XLVI

(1953) 79-S9;

Greek Orthodox Theological Review for "On the Schism of the Greek and Roman Churches: A Confidential Papal Directive for the Implementation of Union ( 1278 ) ," I ( 1954 ) 16-24. Thanks are also due to the following publishers and individuals for permission to reproduce maps or photographs: Professor J. Hussey and the Hutchinson University Library for "Map of the Aegean World ca. 1214-1254," from J. Hussey, The Byzantine World (London, 1956); Cambridge University Press for maps of "The Environs of Constantinople," and "The City of Constantinople/' from Cambridge Medieval History, vol. IV, maps 47B and 47A, and of "Italy under Charles of Anjou," from the same work, vol. VI, map 60; John Murray Ltd. for map "Greece in 1278," from W. Miller, The Latins in the Levant (London, 1908) 151; Volhagen and Klasing for maps "The Byzantine Empire in 1265** and "The Mediterranean Lands after 1204" from Shepherd's Historical Atlas; and, finally, Alinari for a of Anjou.

Urbana, 1957

photograph of a statue of Charles D, G.

Illinois

vifi

contents Introduction.

THE ISSUES AND THE SOURCES

PART

3

I.

THE EMPIRE OF NICAEA AND MICHAEL PALAEOLOGUS

Prologue.

THE BYZANTINE EAST AFTER THE FOURTH CRUSADE (1204)

1.

THE FORMATIVE

YJEARS

CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH. THE TURKS.

13

OF MICHAEL PALAEOLOGUS TRIAL FOR TREASON.

16

FLIGHT TO

2.

REVOLUTION AND USURPATION (1258) 33 THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE PROTOVESTIARIOS GEORGE MUZALON. THE MURDER OF MUZALON AND THE ACCESSION OF MICHAEL TO THE THRONE,

3.

THE BATTLE OF PELAGONIA

(1259)

47

THE ANTI-WCENE COALITION OF MICHAEL OF EPIRUS, MANFRED OF SICILY, AND WILLIAM OF ACHAIA, THE MOTIVES OF MICHAEL OF EPIRUS. THE MOTIVES OF MANFRED. THE MOTIVES OF WILLIAM OF ACHAIA. THE ROLE OF THE LATIN EMPEROR BALDWIN* THE BATTLE AND VICTORY OF MICHAEL PAX-AEOLOCUS AT PELACONIA, 4.

AND DIPLOMATIC PREPARATIONS FOR THE RECOVERY OF CONSTANTINOPLE (1&6Q.1SMI) 75 MILITARY

LATIN PREPARATIONS FOB CONSTANSIEGE OF GALATA, TINOPLE'S DFJsnENSE AND THE STRATEGY OF PALAEOLOGUS* ~~

THE

CRECOGENOESK NEGOTIATIONS PRECEDING THE TREATY OF NYMHIAEUM, PROVISIONS OF THE NYMPHAEUM CONVENTION*

CONTENTS 5.

THE GREEK RECOVERY OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE LATIN EMPIRE (1261) 92 THE EXPEDITION OF THE CAESAR ALEXIOS STRATEGOPOULOS. THE VENETIAN EXPEDITION TO DAPHNXJSIA. THE PENETBATHE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. TION OF THE WALLS.

PART

II.

THE FIRST YEARS OF THE RESTORED BYZANTINE EMPIRE (1261-1266)

6.

THE "NEW CONSTANTINO AND HIS CAPITAL

1

19

THE ENTRANCE OF MICHAEL PALAEOLOGUS INTO THE CITY. THE RESTORATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE: DEPOPULATION AND THE BUILDING OF A FLEET. THE RESRECONSTRUCTION. IMPERIAL POLICY TOWARD THE TORATION OF THE WALLS. LATIN POPULATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 7.

PALAEOLOGAN DIPLOMACY

(1261-1263)

188

CHARACTERISTICS OF PALAEOLOGAN DIPLOMACY* POPE XTHBAN IV, KING MANFBED OF SICILY, AND THK KMI'KKOK MICHAEL. VENICE, GENOA, AND MICHAEL PALAKOLO THE WAR IN AOHAIA ( 1263- -1266 ) - UNIONIST (3264) NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN PALAKOLCXWS AND POPE VIUUN IV. PALAEOLOGUS AND THE BALKANS. IMPERIAL NEGOTIATIONS .

WITH

.

VENICE.

FART HI. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN MICHAEL PALAKOLOCUS AND THE KING OF SICILY, CHARLES OF ANJOU 9.

CHARLES OF ANJOU AND MICHAEL PALAKOUKMS (1266-1270)

189

AND MICHAEL* ADVANCES TOWABJO 11DE BYZANTINE EMPnUfi. CliARACTERS OF CIIARLES

F1!ttT

AKOKVIN

PALAEOIXX;US

CONTENTS

AND THE LATINS TO THE TREATIES OF VITERBO.

THE TREATIES OF VITERBO ( 1267 ) UNIONIST NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN POPE CLEMENT IV AND MICHAEL PALAEOLOGUS. THE GENOESE SETTLEMENT AT GALATA ( 1267) LATIN INDIVEDTJALS IN IMPERIAL SERVICE: THE ZACCARIA BROTHERS AND THE LATIN CORSAIRS. FEUDALISM AND LATINS IN BYZANTIUM. THE GRECO-VENETIAN TREATY OF 1268 AND FURTHER DIPLOMATIC AND MILITARY ACTIVITY OF CHARLES AGAINST PALAEOLOGUS. MICHAEL'S APPEAL TO KING LOUIS ix OF FRANCE AND THE CRUSADE OF LOUIS TO TUNIS (1269-1270). .

.

lO.

CAMPAIGNS AND NEGOTIATIONS

(1270-1274)

229

ANGEVIN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC PENETRATION OF THE BALKANS: ACIIAIA, EPIRUS, ALBANIA, BULGARIA, AND SERBIA. LICARIO AND THE FIRST IMPERIAL CAMPAIGN IN NEGROPONT. UNIONIST NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN POPE GREGORY X AND MICHAEL PALAEOLOGUS, MICHAEL PALAEOLOGUS, THE GHIBKLLINES OF LOMBARDY, AND THE GENOESE OF ITALY AND CALATA, PALAEOLOGUS AND KING ALFONSO X OF CASTILE. PALAKOLOCUS AND VENICE. ANGEVIN MILITARY PREPARATIONS IN THE REGNO AGAINST BYZANTIUM. It.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION OF LYONS

258

THE COUNCIL OF LYONS ( 1274 ) INTERNAL POLICY OF THE KMPKROB TOWARD UNION. ATTITUDE OF THE BYZANTINE PEOPtJC AND C1KRCY. FERMENT IN CONSTANTINOPLE AFXER THE COUNCIL OF LYONS. ,

12.

THE AFTERMATH OF LYONS

(1274-1277)

277

IMMEDIATE PCI JtTJCAL RESULTS OF UNION. IMPERIAL OFFENSIVES AGAINST CHAHX-ES IN ALBANIA AND JOHN THE BASTABD XN THESSALY: THE BATTLES OF NEOPATKAS AND DEMETRIAS. DELATIONS OF POPES CBEGORY X AND INNOCENT V WITH PAJLAEOUX3US (1274-1277): CKECO-ANCEVXN TRUCES, THE EMBASSY OF CEORCE METOOEUXES FOR A no* 1906) supposedly sent by Michael to Popo Urban IV in 1262 congratulating him on his enthronement and referring to Michael's own Viterban descent (for the letter see F. Btissi, htaria della dttb di Viterba, II

17

EMPEROR MICHAEL PALAEOLOGUS AND THE WEST fore the occupation his maternal grandmother Irene, eldest daughter of the then Emperor Alexios III Angelos, and her husband,

Alexios Palaeologus, had been designated for the imperial succession by the Emperor, who was without male issue. But the death of Irene's husband prevented the realization of this design. Subsequently, the couple's only daughter, Theodora, married another

Palaeologus, the Grand Domestic Andronikos, highest ranking 6 military official of Byzantium, and it was from this union that

Michael was born. 7 Descended from Palaeologoi on both sides of his family, Michael was aptly called Diplopalaiologos* Michael's mother does not seem to have exercised a groat influence on his early life: at least there is no mention of her in the* sources after the birth of Michael's youngest brother Constantino, himself but a few years younger than Michael.* Moreover, wo [Rome, J743I 409, no. 20); (2) a wall painting in the Pala/'/o Oommmle of Vitcrbo purporting to be a portrait of the Empcior Michaol "VitcrbicnMs"; (ft) the ( improbable ) derivation of the name Palaeologus (vaXaidf Xctyw) 1mm rctus verbum (hence "Viterbo'*); and (4) a genealogical churl drawn xip Ity a Mxtmith century Padwin monk who traces his own descent back to Michael and Viterbo. For secondary works referring to Michael's purported Italian ancestry see W. Miller,

Cambridge Medieval History, IV (1936) 503; 0. Typaldos,

*''
aa\oOvra. *

The Sultan received only a small force from Theodore but in exchange .surrendered Laodieea and several other places. According to Scutarfotcs, 531, Laoeiimi was soon afterwards recovered by the Turks. Also see Acrop., 144, 1L U)ff. "Pach.,26,11.3-4. Paeh., 28, i 5; Acrop., 144, 12, B, 2-9. Greg,, 59, Constable at this time.

11,

11.

20-23; Greg-, 59, 11. It M; ami Sphruntae*. records that Michael was renamed Crime!

24ff,, explicitly

w

Pachymeres alone mentions this new incident* except for the Arab historian Abtfl FaraJ (commonly called Bar Hebraeus): Chronography of Gregory Faraj, trans. E. Budge (Oxford, 1932) 427. Acropolites, while noting Nik-haft's restored command in the west, says nothing of his disgrace, but Acropolitcg, for at bast part of this time, was a prisoner ofMichael II in Bpirus. Yet it is difficult to believe that Acropolites did not soon learn of Michael's disgrace. Chapmun (30, note 1) doubts that this affair involving Chadenos should be considered a

AMI

new incident.

30

FORMATIVE YEARS patched against Michael

II. After defeating and killing a son of the Despot, Palaeologus was able to advance to Dyrrachium on the Adriatic coast, but the final result, owing especially to defeats

suffered

by other Nicene

generals,

was the

loss of

most of western

Macedonia. 60

For reasons not clearly set forth Pachymeres alone records that because of the increasing severity of his illness, Theodore began to attribute his malady to evil spells cast upon him by various persons, and especially ordered Michael's arrest.

61

the Emperor then by Palaeologus Though evidently forewarned, Michael

did not this time attempt to flee, but instead surrendered to Chaclcnos, Count of the Imperial Horse, who had been sent to Thessalonica to arrest him. Michael's tractability is attributed by Pachy-

meres to the influence of the Bishops of Dyrrachium and Thessalonica, whom Michael had solicited for advice. Interpreting a mysterious prophecy pronounced during religious services as an indication of divine favor and a prognostication of Michael's elevation to the throne, the prelates counseled his surrender

turn to

Nymphaeum,

and

re-

62

The

question, nevertheless, remains why a person of Michael's character, without more realistic assurances of safety, would per-

mit himself to be taken prisoner, possibly thereby to suffer death at the hands of Theodore. How to reconcile such docility with the resourcefulness of his flight to the Turks and his youthful bravado before Vatatzes chiring his trial for treason? Expediency has been *

l

See Pach., 6, 11. 9ff., where Theodore, the slain son of the Despot, is called Manuel, and Acrop., 145-149. The passage which follows in the text is drawn from Pnchymcres. **

In a letter to the philosopher Nikcphoros

Vlcmmydes (probably written

Theodore discusses his malady: "The suffering I exand even worse is the torpor and imperience is insupportable () tnc doctors do nothing and prate only nonsense (dyoi/rafoovcri)" mobility; (Fcsta edL, tetter 48, p. 85), Regarding his suspicions of sorcery on Michael's about Michael's sister part, so A double mention of the term "Varangian" is also to be found in a prostagma of Palaeologus, but this is dated November 1272, that is, after the Greek recapture of Constantinople: see A. Heisenberg, "Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Sit&ungsb. d. bayerischen Akademie der Wis$.> Phil.-hist, K.L Palaiologenzeit, (1920) no. 10, 39, L 30: tv* *xou p^p&yyovy and 1. 49: ol rQv &fi<j>ortyuv iyicXwop&payyot. 1 have found a third use of the word Varangian in the "TestamentunT of the Patriarch Arsenios, who died in 1273: Migne, PG 140, 956B, * dtrrtfcrmXtf <j>v\&Trwrfc pc. These three apparently unused dfXXorc Si pap&yyovx or overlooked references thus substantiate the view expressed by Dawkins and by .

,

.

.

.

.

>

.

.

M* Dcndias

("Oi R&payyoL *cetl rb Bt/ III (Vienna, 1805) 239E (hereafter M.-M.). For text and other editions see Geanakoplos, "Pelagonia," 103, note 11. The territories mentioned in the document arc Dyrrachium, Bellegrada, Avlona, the Sphinariza mountains, and

49

EMPEROR MICHAEL PALAEOLOGUS AND THE WEST

On

2 June 1259, 10 at the time of the marriage of Manfred to Michael of Epirus* daughter Helen, it appears that the Despot not only legitimized this occupation of his lands but even made grants of additional territories as well. Lacking adequate data, only speculate on reasons for this action. It would seem

we can

however, to assume that Michael II, contemplating an offensive against Nicaea and observing that Manfred already possessed the territories by right of conquest, turned a fait acjustifiable,

compli to his

own ends by

officially

granting to Manfred these

11 In this along with others as the dowry of Helen. manner the Despot could avoid hostilities and at the same time

territories

gain a useful ally. In view of the former alliance between Vatatzes and Frederick

the reversal of Sicilian policy toward Nicaea seems at

II,

12

glance surprising.

One must

first

consider, however, that conquest Norman aim for

of the Byzantine Empire had been a traditional almost two centuries, 13 and that Manfred was

now

in a strong enough position in Italy to discard his father's alliance and to look to anyone who could assist him in his ambitions for Balkan

domination.

The

sources afford meagre detail with respect to the creation Both Greek and Latin writers

14 of the Sicilian-Epirot alliance.

the surrounding area. On this see J. Buchon, Recherches historiques $ur la principaut frangaise de "Mor6e et ces hautes baronnies, I (Paris, 1845) 103-104; and 'EX^r? 'AyyeXiva Aotfjccuya paaiXtcrora 2i/cX/ar teal N*a?r4Xt (*>*," esp. M. Dendias, llTmpwn/cA Xpovwii, I (1926) 223 (hereafter cited as Helen). For a point of Dendias' on which the writer disagrees see Geanakoplos, "Pelagonia," 103, note *

On

date see note 14, of this controversial problem of dating Helen's dowry, and especially its connection with the creation of the alliance, sec Geanakoplos, "Pelagonia," 104, note 13, * On this see F. Schneider, "Eine Ouelle fur Manfreds Orientpolitik," Qucllan vnd Forschungen aus italientechen Archiven und Bibliotheken, XXIV (1932-33) 112. Cf, E. Jordan, Les orizines de la domination angevine en Italic (Paris* 1909) 381. tliis

u For documentation

*

Robert Guiscard, Bohemond, Roger II, and Henrv VI had all pursued such a policy; and in 1185 William II had actually sacked Thcssaloniea, M The source for the date and place of the marriage is the chronicle of the contemporary Anonymous of Trani, Discovered by F. Davaiw&ti, it was first pub" $uUa seconda moglie dd re Manftedi e *w* loro figUuolt

lished in his Dissertazione

50

THE BATTLE OF PELAGONIA provide hardly more than the simple facts of Manfred's marriage 15 to Helen, eldest daughter of the Yet it would be of Despot. interest to know who took the initiative in promoting the mar-

more important, whether Manfred's Epirot were secured from Michael of Epirus actually as a possessions result of conquest or as a dowry. For these questions there is no definite evidence, and we must content ourselves with hypotheses based on the few hints the sources offer concerning the motives and ambitions of each member of the coalition. riage alliance, and,

THE MOTIVES OF MICHAEL OF EPIRUS If

one examines the dotal

territories of

Manfred, both those

whose previous possession was now confirmed and those added 10 by Michael II, it is obvious that they constituted certain of the most strategic areas of the Despotate of Epirus, a kind of extension of the Kingdom of Sicily on the Albanian coast. Clearly the master of these would be in position to begin the conquest of the Balkan peninsula. 17 For such concessions it is logical to assume that Michael II expected to draw substantial profit from

the alliance.

Now

the only territories surpassing these in value

(Naples, 1791) llff Though J. Ficker, "Manfreds zweite Heirath und der AnonyTrani," Mitteil. des ln$t. -fur oesterreichische Geschichtsf., Ill (1882) 358-368, considers the chronicle a forgery of Davanzati, it is regarded as authentic by others including Dendias, del Giudice, Meliarakes, and the present writer. For an answer to Picker's argument, see Dendias, Helen, 237ff.

mus von

"Manfred's marriage seems to have preceded that of William of Achaia to Anna, another daughter of Michael II. See Geanakoplos, "Pelagonia," 105* M For evidence that Michael II added other territories to the dowry see my "Pelagonia/* 105, note 18. The fundamental question here, however, is: should Michael II relinquish to Manfred, ruler of a realm traditionally inimical to Epirus, lands which were obviously among the most important parts of his possessions (i.e,, Corfu, Dyrrachium, Avlona, Butrinto, Kanina)? The most reasonable answer, I believe, is that he needed Manfred's aid in order to carry out his designs against Nicaca and Constantinople. If one admits that the Despot added further territories to the dowry, it seems clear that one must also concede that article,

why

Manfred already possessed areas in Epirus before his marriage. w Dyrrachium ( the medieval name for Durazso ) was the key to the Byzantine Empire in the west, for that city and Avlona were the Adriatic termini of the Via Egnatia which led directly to Thcssalonica* On Norman policy to gain control of this route see G. Tafel,

De

vfa

Romanorum

passim.

51

militari

Egnatia (Tuebingen, 1842)

EMPEROR MICHAEL PALAEOLOGUS AND THE WEST were Thessalonica and Constantinople, and there is good reason to believe that the Despot hoped, with the help of his allies, to this carry out designs against these cities. Direct reference to Pachymeres' statement that it was the plan of the Despot

is

troops as possible to attack and try to capand then to be proclaimed Emperor of the [Constantinople], Romans, for there was no one [thought the Despot], cither of Lascarid 18 or any other family, worthier of the Empire than the Angeloi.

to gather together as

ture

many

it

Pachymeres re-emphasizes Michael II, after

assembling the

men of his

this

point

allies

and

as

with

the

remark that

many of his own men

as

he

to attack the generals of Nicaea and then ... to could, planned assault Thessalonica and overrun the west, after which to make an atfirst

tempt on Constantinople

itself.

10

Michael of Epirus' ultimate aim was the capture of Constantinople, a more immediate one was Thessalonica, western center of the Nicene Empire. This was a realizable and legitimate objective, as Epirot territory now extended to its very gates, and especially since Thessalonica had been the capital of an ephemeral Empire established in 1224-1225 by the Despot's uncle, the 20 self-styled Emperor Theodore Dukas Angelos. Supported by his If

and fortified by claims to his uncle's inheritance, the Despot, had reason to believe that Thessalonica would soon be his. Particularly important in Michael II's plans for conquest was

allies

then,

the military aid of William of Aclmia's Frarikish chivalry, the fame of whose prowess had spread even to France/* 1 But how 18

Pach., 82,1116-20, Pach., 83, 11. 14-19. Sec u probable reference to the same objectives in Acrop., 164, 1. 7, who notes that the Epirot "meditated grandiose ideas awl talked of excessive gains/' For another, modern view of the Despot's aims see (Vanntt

koplos, "Pelagonia," 106. *

Theodore had captured Thessalonica from the Latins in 1224, a date ypuw* wrongly as 1222 or 1223. See J. Longnon, "La reprise de, Saloniqnc par les Grecs en 1224," Actv$ du VI* congrte intern, d'frudes byz., I (Paris, 1950) 141ff. and B. Sinogowitz, "Zur Eroberung Thessalonikes im Herbst 1224," %s. Ze&, XLV (1952) 28. 41 On the prestige of the Achaian knighthood in general, ,w* W, Miller, Thv Latins in the Levant (London, 1908) 109. ally cited

52

THE BATTLE OF PELAGONIA Michael intended

to rid himself of this formidable ally after reapis not disclosed.

ing the benefits of his aid

THE MOTIVES OF MANFRED As noted, Manfred possessed almost the

entire littoral of

Albanian Epirus even before his marriage. One indication of his keen interest in this territory and his desire to play a larger role in Balkan affairs is a document of 17 June 1258, revealing that

he had sent a strong fleet of one hundred galleys under his Admiral Chinardo "ad partes Romaniae ... ad provinciam Macedoniae" to support Michael of Epirus against the Nicenes. 22 Although no evidence survives to prove that a battle occurred at this time, it is nevertheless clear that an expedition of this sort would have accorded well with Manfred's Balkan aspirations. 23 The suggestion is to be questioned that Manfred, content with his Epirot fortresses, furnished aid to his father-in-law 24 merely at the request of his wife. It seems more realistic to suppose that, in imitation of his Norman predecessors, Manfred contemplated using Epirus as a springboard for further conquest. Thus, according to Gregoras, the objective of Manfred and William was the seizure "of all Greek territories from the Ionian Sea 25 to Constantinople without effort/' Norden, in fact, supposes that Manfred was seeking a kingdom on the Adriatic, in return for which he would have permitted his father-in-law to have 20 and in this connection Buchon and Dendias Constantinople; believe that Manfred expected and was promised Epirot territory

for his aid,

27

Still

another theory

is

offered

by Dendias, who sug-

'"B. Capasso, Historic diplomatica regni Siciliae (Naples, 1874) 145-146. ** For a denial that such an elaborate expedition took place, see F. Schneider, "Eine Quellc fur Manfreds Orientpolitik," Quellen und Forschungen, XXIV (1932$3) 112-123. For further discussion see Geanakoplos, "Pelagonia," 107-108.

w

85

Dendias, Helen, 224, Greg., 72,115-6.

CL G. Valenti, "Vestigia di Manfredi di Hohenstaufen Re " Signorc di 'Romania,* Numismatica (1939) 65, who cites as evidence of Manfred's aspirations to Byzantine territory two coins inscribed "Manfridus R. et Doxnfxms Romaniac." Siciliae . Dendias, Helen, 277; J. Buchon, Recherches historiques sur la principauU u de Mor6e (Paris, 1845) 279. On this point the sources are not specific. **